CO129-339 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1907 [1-3] — Page 557

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

553

SEE

to excca do deid eriseal de

ENA TIDIEGO bad tedd ine ni Juų vie

IP rs mit 1c 14

:、?」:,、

SAJ

CAMPUNG Alusde Josiew Jeje koJMRİ FARGO JI

! Manor Ri Ji excuc necij ni 2*17JAG SJ3 of cens:JUS

had no reason whatever to believe that their books would be over-hauled.

I submit that the books having been shown to be proper and lawful evidence the Council was justified in attaching great importance to the circumstances under which they had been procured.

7.

With regard to the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State in paragraph 5 of His Lordship's Despatch that statements to the effect that payments had been made to Mr. Ward by a third party were accepted as evidence I should like to offer a short explanation.

The procedure followed was that books showing entries of payments made to Ward were put in by the witness Leung In and that he and other witnesses were then called to explain and verify those entries.

I may state that I was not conducting the case for the Crown before the Council and that I had seen none of the evidence beforehand nor was I aware what witnesses would be called nor what it was expected they would say.

I have however since the enquiry read over the evidence before the Sanitary Commission by Ko Sang and Leung In and I find that in connection with this charge the former spoke positively to four direct payments and the latter to five direct payments to Mr. Ward. These payments were alleged in each case to have been made by the hand of the witness himself.

This accounts for 9 out of the 16 payments laid in the charge.

It is true that before the Council Leung In denied that he had himself personally made any of these payments to Ward, though he spoke to having made other payments which form the subject of another charge.

Ko Sang again, when before the Council, only spoke to having made one payment, that of September 3rd, 1905.

Edit History

2026-06-03 20:33:27 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
553 SEE to excca do deid eriseal de ENA TIDIEGO bad tedd ine ni Juų vie IP rs mit 1c 14 :、?」:,、 SAJ CAMPUNG Alusde Josiew Jeje koJMRİ FARGO JI ! Manor Ri Ji excuc necij ni 2*17JAG SJ3 of cens:JUS had no reason whatever to believe that their books would be over-hauled. I submit that the books having been shown to be proper and lawful evidence the Council was justified in attaching great importance to the circumstances under which they had been procured. 7. With regard to the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State in paragraph 5 of His Lordship's Despatch that statements to the effect that payments had been made to Mr. Ward by a third party were accepted as evidence I should like to offer a short explanation. The procedure followed was that books showing entries of payments made to Ward were put in by the witness Leung In and that he and other witnesses were then called to explain and verify those entries. I may state that I was not conducting the case for the Crown before the Council and that I had seen none of the evidence beforehand nor was I aware what witnesses would be called nor what it was expected they would say. I have however since the enquiry read over the evidence before the Sanitary Commission by Ko Sang and Leung In and I find that in connection with this charge the former spoke positively to four direct payments and the latter to five direct payments to Mr. Ward. These payments were alleged in each case to have been made by the hand of the witness himself. This accounts for 9 out of the 16 payments laid in the charge. It is true that before the Council Leung In denied that he had himself personally made any of these payments to Ward, though he spoke to having made other payments which form the subject of another charge. Ko Sang again, when before the Council, only spoke to having made one payment, that of September 3rd, 1905.
Baseline (Original)
553 SEE to excca do deid eriseal de ENA TIDIEGO bad tedd ine ni Juų vie IP rs mit 1c 14 :、?」:,、 SAJ CAMPUNG Alusde Josiew Jeje koJMRİ FARGO JI ! Manor Ri Ji excuc necij ni 2*17JAG SJ3 of cens:JUS had no reason whatever to believe that their books would be over- -hauled. I submit that the books having been shown ! ༢༨"" CARTE IZLACK anno ted ensurat oa dedd ocean to be proper and lawful evilence the Council was justified in attaching great importance to the circumstances under which they had been procured. J im * 1 70 var tentar te lar 70 1984 tearste Breenidia 7. کھول - DINOS Citaro co en tien varmide on of saturnos anch na Job"Jear 334 n、 63701 10 Abbon 21 ad To 18 DI EILE CICE- tay i ! 146 11. A - cd blur Zu BIUTC0209" 1. deted nod, even. A mond eneQFT AKC FR 701 DOET JOU MAIDen 14 the Jagnj: 3 Mlubei to acadeLong Bad NOUN INI BACKPJUJLOHIO Ndu OT! AE Berdua fuOUJIA C/ 835 noda of ea18590 17 2017 1 BRU420- LIE POAJ a gothaire enracizel (cü edu ekte, u*J***** REACTO cu Levine erea eraro.Jua seand Ben aliw it in Jatra 2ucivola pit JUOHJIA muni antu talved bas + 14. *1th regard to the opinion expressed by the Secretary of State in paragraph 5 of His Lordship's Despatch that statements to the effect that payments had been made to Mr. Ward by a third party were accepted as evidence 1 should like to offer a short explanation. The procedure followed was that books show- -ing entries of payments male to hard were put in by the witness Leung In and that he and other witnesses were then called to explain and verify those entries. I day state that I was not conducting the case for the Crown before the Council and that I had seen none of the evilence before hand nor was I aware what witnesses would be called nor what it was expected they would say, i have however since the enquiry read over the evidence before the Sanitary Commission by Ko Sang and Leung In and i find that in connection with this charge the former spoke positively to four direct payments and the latter to five direct payments to Mr. Ward. These payments were alleged in each. case to have been made by the hand of the witness hisself. This accounts for 9 out of the 16 payments lail in the charge. ud tar TENEgídervai pilkwosudi era norabiḥlut Ta ucdw zacri 27 1 CAN * WIE OU sit en CiuİORAZ DEA 3.3 1 CPC 20 TIL A BLUENJIA It is true that before the Council Leung In denied that he had himself personally made any of these payrants to Ward - though he spoke to having made other payments which form the subject of another charge. Ko Sang again, when before the Council, oni, spoke to having made one payment that of September 3rd. 1905.
2026-06-03 20:33:27 · Baseline
View content

553

SEE

to excca do deid eriseal de

ENA TIDIEGO bad tedd ine ni Juų vie

IP rs mit 1c 14

:、?」:,、

SAJ

CAMPUNG Alusde Josiew Jeje koJMRİ FARGO JI

! Manor Ri Ji excuc necij ni 2*17JAG SJ3 of cens:JUS

had no reason whatever to believe that their books would be over-

-hauled.

I submit that the books having been shown

!

༢༨""

CARTE IZLACK anno ted ensurat oa dedd ocean

to be proper and lawful evilence the Council was justified in

attaching great importance to the circumstances under which they

had been procured.

J

im

* 1 70 var tentar te lar 70 1984 tearste Breenidia

7.

کھول

-

DINOS Citaro

co en tien varmide on

of saturnos så anch na Job"Jear 334 n、

63701 10

Abbon 21 ad To 18 DI EILE CICE-

tay i

! 146 11. A

- cd blur Zu

BIUTC0209" 1. deted nod, even.

A mond eneQFT AKC FR 701 DOET JOU MAIDen 14 the Jagnj: 3

Mlubei to acadeLong Bad NOUN INI BACKPJUJLOHIO Ndu OT! AE

Berdua fuOUJIA

C/ 835 noda of ea18590 17 2017 1 BRU420-

LIE POAJ a gothaire enracizel (cü edu ekte, u*J*****

REACTO

cu Levine erea eraro.Jua seand

Ben aliw it in

Jatra 2ucivola pit JUOHJIA

muni antu talved bas

+

14.

*1th regard to the opinion expressed by the

Secretary of State in paragraph 5 of His Lordship's Despatch

that statements to the effect that payments had been made to Mr.

Ward by a third party were accepted as evidence 1 should like to

offer a short explanation.

The procedure followed was that books show-

-ing entries of payments male to hard were put in by the witness

Leung In and that he and other witnesses were then called to

explain and verify those entries.

I day state that I was not conducting the

case for the Crown before the Council and that I had seen none

of the evilence before hand nor was I aware what witnesses would

be called nor what it was expected they would say,

i have however since the enquiry read over

the evidence before the Sanitary Commission by Ko Sang and Leung

In and i find that in connection with this charge the former spoke positively to four direct payments and the latter to five

direct payments to Mr. Ward. These payments were alleged in each.

case to have been made by the hand of the witness hisself.

This accounts for 9 out of the 16 payments

lail in the charge.

ud tar TENEgídervai pilkwosudi era norabiḥlut

Ta ucdw zacri 27

1 CAN * WIE OU

sit en CiuİORAZ DEA 3.3 1

CPC 20 TIL A

BLUENJIA

It is true that before the Council Leung In

denied that he had himself personally made any of these payrants

to Ward

-

though he spoke to having made other payments which

form the subject of another charge.

Ko Sang again, when before the Council,

oni, spoke to having made one payment that of September 3rd.

1905.

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.